MSNBC Analyst: ‘Hateful Language’ Will ‘Kill’ the ‘Crazy Crackers on the Right’
Democratic strategist and MSNBC political analyst
Karen Finney said Tuesday that the “hateful language” of the “crazy
crackers on the right” will pose a huge thorn in the side of Republicans
when it comes to courting Latino voters.
She weighed in on an MSNBC panel:
As in ’05 and ’06, the death knell for Republicans is the tone of this conversation. We had evangelical Latinos wanting to meet with Howard Dean at the DNC because — I’m just saying, that’s a shift! Point being, we saw in droves the Latino community moving over to the Democratic Party, largely because of the tone. And you even had Republicans [who were] Latino just disgusted with the tone.So these guys have to be very, very careful. And the other thing these guys know is, those crazy crackers on the right, if they start with their very hateful language, that it’s going to kill them in the same way that they learned at their little retreat that let’s not talk about rape. [Emphasis added]
No one on the panel pointed out the
irony of lamenting the “hateful language” of Republicans right before
calling them “crazy crackers.”
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/01/29/msnbc-analyst-hateful-language-will-kill-the-crazy-crackers-on-the-right/
Consumer Confidence Plunges; Wipes Out 2012 Gains
Some in the media are blaming
January's 8.1 point drop in consumer confidence on the increase in
payroll taxes that hit last month. But that doesn't exactly explain the
sharp drop the month before, or the month before that, does it? In October of 2012, consumer confidence sat at 73.1. Today it's 58.6.
Funny how October was the high-water
mark -- you know, the same month the media did most of its dishonest
economic cheerleading in order to pull Obama over the reelection finish
line.
“Consumer confidence posted another
sharp decline in January, erasing all of the gains made through 2012,"
said Lynn Franco, director of economic indicators. "Consumers are more
pessimistic about the economic outlook and, in particular, their
financial situation."
Consumers are also pessimistic about business conditions and jobs, two other areas that saw decreases.
While receiving less money in your
check is always a bummer, especially after Obama assured everyone only
the "rich" would get stuck with a higher tax bill, what consumers might
also be feeling is a potentially serious economic contraction. According
to the AP, "many" economists believe our economy grew at a measly 1%
rate between October and December of last year.
Consumers might also be getting a
stunning dose of reality now that the media flim-flam that went on all
throughout the presidential campaign has come to an end. For months, the
media sold America a load of lies about Obama's magical recovery.
Americans everywhere were treated to non-stop nonsense about how job
growth that didn’t keep up with population growth was "good news"; and
how anemic GDP growth meant we are on our way!
Near the end of the campaign, the media would've had us believe the go-go eighties had returned.
But now the election's over and without
the media's "Go" and "Barack" pom-poms blocking our view, a cold
reality has returned for millions of Americans; a reality where jobs are
scarce, economic growth is slowing, and the economy is nowhere to be
found on Obama's or the media's list of priorities.
Moreover, both Obama and his media want
to continue to pretend people aren’t hurting. They seem to believe that
if they ignore chronic, long-term joblessness, an increase in poverty,
and the rest -- the biggest story in the country (the economy) will fix
itself.
In other words, the media and Obama
don’t care about millions of American struggling, because if they start
to care, it will acknowledge there's a problem.
People have every reason to be
pessimistic, and this drop in consumer confidence shows that they know
it. Dips in consumer confidence can also have a real impact on the
economy. If people stop spending, the ripple effect hits everything from
job growth to manufacturing to housing.
How long before we're told that pessimism is racist?
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/01/29/Consumer-Confidence-Plunges-To-Novermber-2011-Levels
Krauthammer: FOX News should be proud that we annoy Obama so much
As we heard in President Obama’s recent interview with TNR, the White House’s irritation with FOX News and rightward-leaning media outlets continues unabated — but as Charles Krauthammer pointed out last night, that should be more of a source of pride than anything else. Nothing says success quite like your competition’s outspoken annoyance:I love to hear the president whine about FOX News and talk radio. I think we ought to be proud of the fact that we annoy him so much. If you look at the line-up on one side, the liberal media, you start with ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, PBS, MSNBC, the elite newspapers, the one remaining news magazine, the universities, Hollywood — it doesn’t stop anywhere. And on the other side, talk radio, FOX News. And they can’t stand the fact that they no longer have a monopoly.
So, I think it ought to be taken as a compliment. What I’ve always said about Roger Ailes and Rupert Murdoch, their genius was understanding and locating a niche audience in broadcast cable news, which is half the American people. The half that have suffered for decades by the fact you get the news presented from a single perspective over and over again.
Finally, the fact that there is a new perspective, talk radio and FOX, and they can’t stand it. It’s a source of pride, I would say.http://hotair.com/archives/2013/01/29/krauthammer-fox-news-should-be-proud-that-we-annoy-obama-so-much/
PK'S NOTE: Here's another "drill" in a US city by US forces:
Army training exercise in Houston alarms residents...
The sight of Army helicopters and the sound of gunfire created a lot of concern Monday afternoon in one Houston neighborhood.
We received a lot of phones calls, Tweets and Facebook posts from worried neighbors, wondering what was going on.
SkyEye 13 HD was over the south side where at first look, it appeared there was a massive SWAT scene happening.
With military helicopters flying above her southeast Houston neighborhood, Frances Jerrals didn't know what to think.
"When you see this, you think the worst. When you hear this, you think the worst," Jerrals said.
And so, she passed along her concern.
"She told me 'don't come home it sounds like we're in a war zone. Guns, shooting, helicopters flying around the house,'" Isaac Robertson Jr. said.
The U.S. Army along with other agencies took over the old Carnegie Vanguard High School near Scott and Airport. There were armed men in fatigues, plenty of weapons and what many thought were real live rounds
"I felt like I was in a warzone." Jerrals said. "It was nonstop. I was terrified."
Turns out, it was a multi-agency training drill that Jerrals wished would have come with warning.
"They could have done a better job in notifying the neighborhood," Jerrals said.
The Army did not give any details of what the training is for. Some people we spoke to needed no explanation.
"If it's to protect our kids, I'm all for it," neighbor Glenn DeWitt said.
http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?section=news/local&id=8971311
Illinois School District adding Muslim holiday, considers dropping Veterans & Presidents Days
Skokie School District 68’s 2013-14 calendar for the first time calls for a day off on Eid ul Adha, a major Muslim holiday.
Not long ago, adopting a school calendar
for the following year was perfunctory for Niles Township school
districts, but not anymore. The village’s growing ethnic diversity has
inspired more districts to break away from old patterns.
The township used to be heavily Jewish and
many of its schools closed down only for high Jewish holidays and a few
others like Good Friday.
Neighboring Skokie School District 73.5,
though, was one of the first township districts to recognize the area’s
demographic change in deciding on its calendar. That district’s school
board made the controversial decision — at least at the time — to remain
open for all religious holidays, sparking an annual lively debate.
More districts have followed District
73.5’s lead, even if remaining open on all religious holidays results in
certain heavy non-attendance days.
District 68, the largest elementary school
district in Skokie, has not yet taken that path, but naming Eid ul Adha
a day off signals a big change.
“This was the first year I’ve been approached by a parent as to why we take two Jewish days off and no Muslim day off,” District 68 Superintendent Frances McTague said.
The latest school report card from the
state shows that nearly 73 percent of District 68 students are not
white, and more than 32 percent are Asian.
Under the approved district calendar for
next school year, classes will begin Aug. 21 and end June 3, 2014 if no
mak-up days are needed. In addition to Eid ul Adha on Oct. 15, the
district will close for Rosh Hashanah Sept. 5 and Good Friday April 18,
2014.
District 68 for the first time is also
considering adopting a 2014-15 calendar soon, thereby beginning a
pattern of planning two-year calendars at a time.
“Lots of school districts are adopting
two-year calendars now,” McTague said. “This next year though will be a
little more challenging.”
That’s because more religious holidays
fall on school days and Niles Township High School District 219 is
beginning its calendar in 2014-15 earlier than before. The feeder
elementary school districts have always taken into account the high
school district’s calendar.
The District 68 Board last week discussed
waiving three usual days off in the 2014-15 calendar: Veterans Day,
Presidents Day and Casimir Pulaski Day. The state allows districts to
get waivers to stay open for those holidays although District 68 has
never done so before.
The District 68 School Board could vote on a 2014-15 calendar in February.
Obama to Fly Over 9 Hours Just for Speech on Immigration
The speech and photo-op will cost taxpayers over $1.6 million.
President Barack Obama will fly over 9 hours tomorrow, round-trip from Washington, D.C. to Las Vegas, Nevada, just to deliver a speech on immigration, according to the president's White House schedule. With Air Force One estimated to cost $182,000 per hour in flight, Obama's trip--that is, only his travel to and from Vegas--will cost taxpayers over $1.6 million.Obama has no other public events scheduled in Las Vegas but his immigration speech.
"In the morning, the President will depart the White House en route Las Vegas, Nevada. The departure from the South Lawn and the arrival at McCarran International Airport are open press," the president's schedule reads.
"While in Las Vegas, the President will deliver remarks on the need to fix the broken immigration system so that it is fairer for and helps grow the middle class by ensuring everyone plays by the same rules. The President's remarks at Del Sol High School are open to pre-credentialed media.
"In the evening, the President will depart Las Vegas, Nevada en route Washington, DC. The departure from McCarran International Airport and the arrival on the South Lawn are open press."
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/obama-fly-over-9-hours-just-speech-immigration_698171.html
PK'S NOTE: Ain't that the truth. If you haven't read the book, you might want to. It's a honkin' big book though. I read it in Virginia City in a falling down Brewery listening to classical music and the rain coming down.
U.S. Senator: Gee, things are starting to look like ‘Atlas Shrugged’ around here
Sen. Ron Johnson said there were “absolutely” parallels between the novel “Atlas Shrugged” and America today in an interview published Monday with a group that promotes the work of libertarian philosopher Ayn Rand, the book’s author.
“Absolutely,” the Wisconsin Republican said when asked by an interviewer from the Atlas Society if “Atlas Shrugged” resembled modern-day America.
In the 1957 novel, society’s most productive and wealthy citizens go on strike to protest increased government taxes and regulation. Millions of copies have sold since the book’s release, and tens of thousands of copies are still sold each year.
http://www.theblaze.com/blog/2013/01/29/u-s-senator-gee-things-are-starting-to-look-like-atlas-shrugged-around-here/“I’m not sure there are too many differences,” Johnson said later when asked what the differences between his philosophy and Rand’s were. “I guess when you take a look at the book Atlas Shrugged, I think most people always like to identify with the main character — that would be John Galt. I guess I identify with Hank Rearden, the fellow that just refused until the very end to give up. And I guess I’d like to think of myself more as a Hank Rearden — I’m not going to give up. America is something far, far too precious in the span of human history. I’ll never give up hope on America. I hope everybody that’s watching this will never give up hope.”
Let’s meet on Medicaid, Mr. President
By Bobby Jindal, a Republican, is governor of Louisiana.
Our state’s analyses, and reports by organizations that have supported Obamacare, such as the Kaiser Family Foundation and the Urban Institute, estimate that such an expansion would cost Louisiana more than a billion dollars over the first 10 years.
The Obama administration heralds this as a tremendous bargain for states. That’s simply not the case. The administration overlooks that Medicaid is largely failing current enrollees with its outdated model that costs billions of taxpayer dollars and produces poor outcomes.
Medicaid operates under a 1960s model of medicine, with inflexible, one-size-fits-all benefits and little consumer engagement and responsibility. Expanding the entitlement program as it stands would further cement a separate and unequal tier of health coverage. Without fundamental reform, Medicaid will continue to deliver what it has for decades: limited access, poor quality and budget deficits.
Fortunately, after nearly a half-century of running this program, states know its problems and how to address them.
A number of Republican governors have asked to meet with President Obama to discuss their solutions, but the White House has ignored these requests. The president claims that he wants to work across party lines to get things done for the American people, so perhaps he could start by meeting with Republican governors who want to solve our nation’s health-care problems.
Our ideas to fix Medicaid target several areas for reform: eligibility, benefit design, cost-sharing, use of the private insurance market, financing and accountability.
First, the process to determine eligibility should be simple, accurate and fair. There are far too many complicated categories of Medicaid eligibility. The process should be easier for consumers to navigate and for states to administer. States should have the flexibility to set eligibility standards that make sense for residents, instead of the rigid, one-size-fits-all approach dictated by Washington. For any expansion, there must be straightforward rules to identify who is newly eligible for Medicaid vs. those who would have traditionally been eligible. Our country cannot afford billions of dollars in payments on untested methodologies.
States should be allowed to design their programs to promote value and individual ownership in health-care decisions. This includes using consumer-directed products, flexible benefit design, and reasonable and enforceable cost-sharing requirements. States must be freed from decades-old rules that are no longer relevant to 21st-century health care. For example, just like those of us who have employer-sponsored coverage or Medicare, Medicaid recipients shouldn’t have free access to hospital emergency rooms for routine care. When individuals have no skin in the game, they are less likely to consume care responsibly.
States should be able to make use of their private health insurance market through their Medicaid eligibility levels, program design and ability to offer premium assistance. Currently, states are prevented, until 2019, from moving youths enrolled in their Children’s Health Insurance Programs to their parents’ insurance if the coverage was purchased in an exchange. It doesn’t make sense for family members to be in different coverage programs or for the federal government to crowd out and replace private coverage with a government-run program. Furthermore, states should have the ability to grant “premium assistance” for Medicaid-eligible individuals at any income level to buy into the health insurance market.
Finally, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) should streamline Medicaid financing and improve the process to give states more flexibility, coupled with greater accountability. The process by which states negotiate for flexibility, called “waivers,” is broken. Federal officials should have greater accountability for timely review of waiver applications. In particular, waiver applications based on those already approved in other states should be fast-tracked. HHS should allow states to opt in to a more flexible long-term-funding arrangement, allowing them to design programs that best meet residents’ needs, rather than requiring the same package of services for every individual. At the same time, federal and state officials could agree to greater accountability for improvements in health outcomes, not just processes.
Rules recently proposed by HHS include encouraging provisions that give a nod to governors’ repeated calls for flexibility. But the conversation is still one-sided. Instead of rushing to expand Medicaid as-is, the president and Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius should first engage in earnest discussions with state leaders. Many of us are eager to reform existing programs rather than spend more money on a rigid and expensive program that won’t work for states, beneficiaries or taxpayers. So, let’s meet, Mr. President.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/bobby-jindal-to-fix-medicaid-listen-to-governors/2013/01/28/ff5c8e5e-6711-11e2-85f5-a8a9228e55e7_story.html
John Kerry, President Obama's Ideological Twin
Senator John
Kerry (D-MA) is likely to be confirmed today as the next Secretary of State
after sailing through a Senate hearing last week. What does this mean for
America and its foreign policy?
As Heritage's Helle Dale wrote after last week’s hearing:
Kerry, a former presidential candidate who served in Vietnam and then protested the war, has chaired the Senate Foreign Relations Committee—the committee where his confirmation hearings take place—since 2009. He has been a Senator since 1985. Some of his key positions:
The Secretary of State’s priorities should be defending American sovereignty, promoting economic freedom, and restoring American leadership in the world. Kerry’s track record and his fidelity to Obama’s worldview give us little hope for those priorities.
Guide to the Hearings:
Heritage experts have put out a guide to the confirmation hearings for Kerry, former Senator Chuck Hagel (R–NE) for Secretary of Defense, and White House chief counterterrorism advisor John Brennan for director of the CIA. See their analysis of major issues facing each nominee in these categories:
U.S. Policy on Asia
Middle East and North Africa Issues
U.S. Strategic Forces
U.S. Policy on Europe
U.S. Policy on Sub-Saharan Africa
U.S. Policy on Arctic Security
U.S. Policy for the Western Hemisphere
Views on Russia
Cybersecurity and Internet Freedom
As Heritage's Helle Dale wrote after last week’s hearing:
The bad news for the United States is that Kerry is President Obama’s ideological twin and can be expected to enthusiastically embrace the Obama doctrine and continue the Administration’s pursuit of arms control, international treaties, and climate-change agreements. This is a classic liberal agenda, which will only lead to a further erosion of American global leadership.Though Kerry talked tough on Iran, The Wall Street Journal described Kerry’s stance as a “vision to wind down America's military operations in the Islamic world and to pursue a foreign policy more driven by aid, economics and environmental issues.”
Kerry, a former presidential candidate who served in Vietnam and then protested the war, has chaired the Senate Foreign Relations Committee—the committee where his confirmation hearings take place—since 2009. He has been a Senator since 1985. Some of his key positions:
- He has stated that when the U.S. undertakes military action, it must first pass a “global test.”
- He has been a cheerleader for various international treaties, such as the Law of the Sea Treaty and the Arms Trade Treaty, that infringe on U.S. sovereignty.
- He is one of the greatest supporters of President Obama’s “reset” policy with Russia.
- He has supported the idea of “fruitful talks between the U.S. and North Korea.”
The Secretary of State’s priorities should be defending American sovereignty, promoting economic freedom, and restoring American leadership in the world. Kerry’s track record and his fidelity to Obama’s worldview give us little hope for those priorities.
Guide to the Hearings:
Heritage experts have put out a guide to the confirmation hearings for Kerry, former Senator Chuck Hagel (R–NE) for Secretary of Defense, and White House chief counterterrorism advisor John Brennan for director of the CIA. See their analysis of major issues facing each nominee in these categories:
U.S. Policy on Asia
Middle East and North Africa Issues
U.S. Strategic Forces
U.S. Policy on Europe
U.S. Policy on Sub-Saharan Africa
U.S. Policy on Arctic Security
U.S. Policy for the Western Hemisphere
Views on Russia
Cybersecurity and Internet Freedom
http://blog.heritage.org/2013/01/29/morning-bell-john-kerry-president-obamas-ideological-twin/?roi=echo3-14390589566-11172546-94f1d24726eb4f066b2783224657f8dc&utm_source=Newsletter&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=Morning%2BBell
The Hippocritic Oaths
This
morning I heard Rand Paul, the Junior Senator from Kentucky, deliver an
angry message to his colleagues. The subject was their failure to obey
their own rules. He mentioned their failure to pass a budget in nearly
four years. But his outrage was really triggered when he received a six
hundred page bill to be voted on later that day. It contained some last
minute provisions that nobody but Harry Reid is aware of---to the extent
that Harry is aware of anything but his own vast ego and lust for
power.
It contained copious references to the more than a hundred million word document known as Federal Register and other mega documents containing the codified laws of the United States. These get amended every time new laws or regulations pass, often in unpredictable ways. There is zero chance that there are not filled with massive errors and unintended provisions. It is likely that the total word count exceeds a billion.
No Senator could possibly understand the bill in much under a month. Senator Paul recommended, perhaps tongue in cheek, that all bills be allocated twenty days per page for Congress and its subjects (us) to study before passage. But that would be no more than some 7000 pages per year of new legislation unless the Senators learned to multitask. How could the Republic survive?
Each president recites the following oath, in accordance with Article II, Section I of the U.S. Constitution:
As Congress and the President embark on a path to save or destroy the American health care system, depending on whom one believes, it is fair to ask if they are honoring their oaths of office. Physicians used to swear to adhere to The Hippocratic Oath. Alas, modern medical ethicists (people who think they know right from wrong better than the rest of us) have found the Oath to be a bit too restrictive. In particular the practices of euthanasia and abortion are forbidden by the Oath. Mere oaths cannot be allowed to be a barrier to progress.
Our progressive rulers have been violating their Oaths so thoroughly that it is hard to understand how they can look in the mirror without blushing. Ask yourself a question. If you hired an attorney to help you understand a contract and relied on her advice that you can sign it, how would you feel if it transpired that she never even read the contract first? That would be cause for disbarment for failure to follow the ethical imperatives of the legal profession.
How much more must a failure of our elected Congressmen to even vote for a piece of legislation be a violation of their Oaths of Office, if they have not bothered to read it? If it is really necessary to have such long bills that not all of them can read these bills, then those who do not read, or who do not thoroughly understand it, it should vote Nay or abstain. Otherwise, how can they know they are bearing allegiance to the Constitution? The President gets to take one last look before signing it. The poor President had better be a speed reader.
This is hardly a new problem. But I would wager that it did not start during the administrations of Washington, Adams and Jefferson. As in the Emperor's New Clothes, once it becomes apparent, it can no longer be ignored. At first it was a bit of a joke, but as one thousand-page bill after another was passed with NOBODY in Congress reading it, with trillions of dollars of deficit spending being committed, the laughter has turned to derision. Just to rub salt in the wound, the progressive leadership decided that waiting a few days so that the press could try to understand what was in these bills would cause an intolerable delay. Do our elected officials really believe they are defending the Constitution from all enemies, like American citizens who disagree with them?
If you listen to the rhetoric from our progressive rulers, progress depends on bending their Oaths a bit. After all, if anonymous young staffers fresh out of Ivy League law schools who draft the bills cannot be trusted with trillion dollar decisions, then who can be trusted? Who is better equipped to risk the economic and physical health of the entire population? How refreshing it would be if those who took the Hippocritic Oath would answer these questions.
It contained copious references to the more than a hundred million word document known as Federal Register and other mega documents containing the codified laws of the United States. These get amended every time new laws or regulations pass, often in unpredictable ways. There is zero chance that there are not filled with massive errors and unintended provisions. It is likely that the total word count exceeds a billion.
No Senator could possibly understand the bill in much under a month. Senator Paul recommended, perhaps tongue in cheek, that all bills be allocated twenty days per page for Congress and its subjects (us) to study before passage. But that would be no more than some 7000 pages per year of new legislation unless the Senators learned to multitask. How could the Republic survive?
Each president recites the following oath, in accordance with Article II, Section I of the U.S. Constitution:
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."Each member of Congress recites a similar oath at the beginning of each of his or her terms in office.
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God."Do these oaths really mean anything? I am unaware of any case where any elected official has ever been prosecuted for failure to honor the oath. No criteria are given in the oaths for what constitutes a violation. Short of a conviction for treason, it is hard to imagine the oath being enforced. If it is not a criminal matter or even a civil matter (interesting thought), how can the oath be enforced? One way is for voters to enforce it at the ballot box. Perhaps it has been done many times. There is no way to know for sure.
As Congress and the President embark on a path to save or destroy the American health care system, depending on whom one believes, it is fair to ask if they are honoring their oaths of office. Physicians used to swear to adhere to The Hippocratic Oath. Alas, modern medical ethicists (people who think they know right from wrong better than the rest of us) have found the Oath to be a bit too restrictive. In particular the practices of euthanasia and abortion are forbidden by the Oath. Mere oaths cannot be allowed to be a barrier to progress.
Our progressive rulers have been violating their Oaths so thoroughly that it is hard to understand how they can look in the mirror without blushing. Ask yourself a question. If you hired an attorney to help you understand a contract and relied on her advice that you can sign it, how would you feel if it transpired that she never even read the contract first? That would be cause for disbarment for failure to follow the ethical imperatives of the legal profession.
How much more must a failure of our elected Congressmen to even vote for a piece of legislation be a violation of their Oaths of Office, if they have not bothered to read it? If it is really necessary to have such long bills that not all of them can read these bills, then those who do not read, or who do not thoroughly understand it, it should vote Nay or abstain. Otherwise, how can they know they are bearing allegiance to the Constitution? The President gets to take one last look before signing it. The poor President had better be a speed reader.
This is hardly a new problem. But I would wager that it did not start during the administrations of Washington, Adams and Jefferson. As in the Emperor's New Clothes, once it becomes apparent, it can no longer be ignored. At first it was a bit of a joke, but as one thousand-page bill after another was passed with NOBODY in Congress reading it, with trillions of dollars of deficit spending being committed, the laughter has turned to derision. Just to rub salt in the wound, the progressive leadership decided that waiting a few days so that the press could try to understand what was in these bills would cause an intolerable delay. Do our elected officials really believe they are defending the Constitution from all enemies, like American citizens who disagree with them?
If you listen to the rhetoric from our progressive rulers, progress depends on bending their Oaths a bit. After all, if anonymous young staffers fresh out of Ivy League law schools who draft the bills cannot be trusted with trillion dollar decisions, then who can be trusted? Who is better equipped to risk the economic and physical health of the entire population? How refreshing it would be if those who took the Hippocritic Oath would answer these questions.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/01/the_hippocritic_oaths.html
A Shameless Media
Bob Schieffer of CBS News described President Obama's recent opening remarks at the gun control press conference as, "one of the best speeches I've ever heard him deliver". Schieffer
went on to praise the president's cause as similar to the ten-year hunt
for Osama bin Laden and Lyndon Johnson's successful attempt to pass
civil rights legislation. Although Schieffer indicated that more than an
Obama speech would be required, this wasn't objective journalism but
slobbering praise for a man with a checkered record of accomplishment.
Mr. Schieffer's kudos was a reminder of the stunning assessment that David Brooks bestowed upon the President immediately following his re-election. Mr. Brooks, the self-described "conservative" New York Times journalist stated that Obama was a man of "high integrity" and had run a "very clean administration" during his first term. He concluded that Obama would avoid the scandals that plaguedmany Presidents during their second terms. Brooks said very directly, "there have been signs of insularity and arrogance, but there have been no scandals". Huh? Fast and Furious and Benghazi apparently do not reach Mr. Brook's threshold for scandal.
Then there is coverage of President Obama's economy. If the monthly unemployment rate drops Obama receives credit even if hundreds of thousands exited the job market in despair. In November of 2012, 540,000 dropped out as the unemployment rate declined from 7.9% to 7.7%. Workforce dropouts accounted for more than the .2% rate drop but that fact went largely without mention in the media. Conversely, if the rate increases, the media will mphasize the jobs created even if the amount is insufficient to keep up with population growth.
Obama's first term has been marred by political tactics bordering on thuggery. He claimed he wanted not red states or blue states, but the United States. He claimed he would be a unifier, that he would be open and transparent and that if elected he would bring civility to the oval office. Simply put, he lied. With an assist from the media, he and the left have discarded any pretense of civility. Obama's promises of bringing to the table a range of views and seeking the best solutions was also quickly replaced with labeling those that disagreed with his actions or initiatives as morally deficient, racist, or lacking some other important character trait. Where was the media?
This approach has been frequently used by the liberal left in the past. But the use of racism, class warfare, and sexism has been taken to new heights by this president and the power of his office. He browbeats the opposition and blatantly uses allies in the mainstream media (MSM), academia, and Hollywood to reemphasize and trumpet his rightness. The alliance has been so effective that conversation and the art of the possible, politics, has devolved into demagoguery. What has the media reported?
The media, in particular, has repeatedly given Obama a pass on his actions, programs, and tactics. While George W. Bush was ridiculed and pilloried for his positions on the Patriot Act, the use of wiretaps, rendition, Guantanamo, and many other aspects of "his" war on terror. Obama has maintained and extended these policies virtually without comment from the media. And scandals which generally bring intense scrutiny from the media when linked to a president have been soft-pedaled no matter how serious. Why didn't the media profess its usual outrage?
The Obama administration has been rife with scandal since its inception in 2009. Within weeks of the president's inauguration, Timothy Geithner and Kathleen Sebelius, both nominated to important cabinet posts (Secretary of the Treasury and Secretary of Health and Human Services respectively), were discovered to have income tax problems requiring rectification. Mrs. Sebelius was more recently found to be in violation of Federal campaign laws, which received very limited media attention. Why didn't the media question Obama's selection process?
The "minor" scandals metamorphosed into larger wrongdoing such as green energy cronyism, the EPA-Lisa Jackson record-masking activities and Eric Holder's actions that undermined the rule of law; no prosecution of the New Black Panther's for voter intimidation in Philadelphia andthe reopening of cases against already cleared federal agents for torture. Then Fast and Furious and Benghazi materialized elevating Obama's scandal plagued administration into the major leagues (executive privilege was also used). What has the media reported and how was it reported?
With few exceptions the media has not covered, has downplayed, or made excuses for these significant Obama administration failures in judgment, honesty, leadership, and administrative control. The media's lack of interest in the failings of Obama's first term leads to two obvious questions; first, why? ...and second, will this pattern of behavior change in his second term?
Causes? ...first, the media and key journalists may fear losing access to the president and his subordinates if their scrutiny or reporting becomes notably critical even when warranted. This concern certainly has a basis in fact since Obama attempted to severely limit Fox News' access and coverage in the past. Second, the media can be described as quite liberal/progressive in both persuasion and as measured by scholarly studies and may not feel comfortable criticizing/questioning their own beliefs and biases.
Third, journalists may be attempting to avoid being targeted by administration bullies; a tactic that has been successfully employed to silence other critics (e.g. conservatives, Republicans). This tactic could bring them to the attention of their liberal community and serve to at least temporarily cause personal discomfort. Fourth, a trepidation that race could be employed to silence a pattern of open and persistent negative measurement of Obama's decisions warrants consideration. Again, the past suggests that a racist charge is possible given the treatment that Mayor Cory Booker (and others) received from Obama's minions.
Yet the reasons for such favorable treatment go well beyond those mentioned. Obama has been treated almost as a godlike figure by some. The MSM's coverage of the president has been so obviously prejudiced in his favor that polling surfaces an appreciable decline in the media's credibility/standing with the public. Additionally, traditional MSM outlets have suffered financially due to the emergence of alternative news sources (e.g. internet, Twitter) along with their clearly biased content.
Thus if the past is predictive, little will change in the media's sentiment toward Obama in his second term. The media does not seem repentant for their past coverage of Obama and in fact some narratives have moved to cheerleading (e.g. J. Dickerson-CBS) the goals of future presidential attacks on his political opposition and other dissenters. The memes that insinuate or directly portray Republicans and conservatives as unpatriotic, insensitive, morally deficient, liars, racists, and corrupt have continued. The media's examination of Obama's activities and decisions has been shameful and has progressed to shameless. The material bias in favor of Obama will remain with high probability during his second term.
Mr. Schieffer's kudos was a reminder of the stunning assessment that David Brooks bestowed upon the President immediately following his re-election. Mr. Brooks, the self-described "conservative" New York Times journalist stated that Obama was a man of "high integrity" and had run a "very clean administration" during his first term. He concluded that Obama would avoid the scandals that plaguedmany Presidents during their second terms. Brooks said very directly, "there have been signs of insularity and arrogance, but there have been no scandals". Huh? Fast and Furious and Benghazi apparently do not reach Mr. Brook's threshold for scandal.
Then there is coverage of President Obama's economy. If the monthly unemployment rate drops Obama receives credit even if hundreds of thousands exited the job market in despair. In November of 2012, 540,000 dropped out as the unemployment rate declined from 7.9% to 7.7%. Workforce dropouts accounted for more than the .2% rate drop but that fact went largely without mention in the media. Conversely, if the rate increases, the media will mphasize the jobs created even if the amount is insufficient to keep up with population growth.
Obama's first term has been marred by political tactics bordering on thuggery. He claimed he wanted not red states or blue states, but the United States. He claimed he would be a unifier, that he would be open and transparent and that if elected he would bring civility to the oval office. Simply put, he lied. With an assist from the media, he and the left have discarded any pretense of civility. Obama's promises of bringing to the table a range of views and seeking the best solutions was also quickly replaced with labeling those that disagreed with his actions or initiatives as morally deficient, racist, or lacking some other important character trait. Where was the media?
This approach has been frequently used by the liberal left in the past. But the use of racism, class warfare, and sexism has been taken to new heights by this president and the power of his office. He browbeats the opposition and blatantly uses allies in the mainstream media (MSM), academia, and Hollywood to reemphasize and trumpet his rightness. The alliance has been so effective that conversation and the art of the possible, politics, has devolved into demagoguery. What has the media reported?
The media, in particular, has repeatedly given Obama a pass on his actions, programs, and tactics. While George W. Bush was ridiculed and pilloried for his positions on the Patriot Act, the use of wiretaps, rendition, Guantanamo, and many other aspects of "his" war on terror. Obama has maintained and extended these policies virtually without comment from the media. And scandals which generally bring intense scrutiny from the media when linked to a president have been soft-pedaled no matter how serious. Why didn't the media profess its usual outrage?
The Obama administration has been rife with scandal since its inception in 2009. Within weeks of the president's inauguration, Timothy Geithner and Kathleen Sebelius, both nominated to important cabinet posts (Secretary of the Treasury and Secretary of Health and Human Services respectively), were discovered to have income tax problems requiring rectification. Mrs. Sebelius was more recently found to be in violation of Federal campaign laws, which received very limited media attention. Why didn't the media question Obama's selection process?
The "minor" scandals metamorphosed into larger wrongdoing such as green energy cronyism, the EPA-Lisa Jackson record-masking activities and Eric Holder's actions that undermined the rule of law; no prosecution of the New Black Panther's for voter intimidation in Philadelphia andthe reopening of cases against already cleared federal agents for torture. Then Fast and Furious and Benghazi materialized elevating Obama's scandal plagued administration into the major leagues (executive privilege was also used). What has the media reported and how was it reported?
With few exceptions the media has not covered, has downplayed, or made excuses for these significant Obama administration failures in judgment, honesty, leadership, and administrative control. The media's lack of interest in the failings of Obama's first term leads to two obvious questions; first, why? ...and second, will this pattern of behavior change in his second term?
Causes? ...first, the media and key journalists may fear losing access to the president and his subordinates if their scrutiny or reporting becomes notably critical even when warranted. This concern certainly has a basis in fact since Obama attempted to severely limit Fox News' access and coverage in the past. Second, the media can be described as quite liberal/progressive in both persuasion and as measured by scholarly studies and may not feel comfortable criticizing/questioning their own beliefs and biases.
Third, journalists may be attempting to avoid being targeted by administration bullies; a tactic that has been successfully employed to silence other critics (e.g. conservatives, Republicans). This tactic could bring them to the attention of their liberal community and serve to at least temporarily cause personal discomfort. Fourth, a trepidation that race could be employed to silence a pattern of open and persistent negative measurement of Obama's decisions warrants consideration. Again, the past suggests that a racist charge is possible given the treatment that Mayor Cory Booker (and others) received from Obama's minions.
Yet the reasons for such favorable treatment go well beyond those mentioned. Obama has been treated almost as a godlike figure by some. The MSM's coverage of the president has been so obviously prejudiced in his favor that polling surfaces an appreciable decline in the media's credibility/standing with the public. Additionally, traditional MSM outlets have suffered financially due to the emergence of alternative news sources (e.g. internet, Twitter) along with their clearly biased content.
Thus if the past is predictive, little will change in the media's sentiment toward Obama in his second term. The media does not seem repentant for their past coverage of Obama and in fact some narratives have moved to cheerleading (e.g. J. Dickerson-CBS) the goals of future presidential attacks on his political opposition and other dissenters. The memes that insinuate or directly portray Republicans and conservatives as unpatriotic, insensitive, morally deficient, liars, racists, and corrupt have continued. The media's examination of Obama's activities and decisions has been shameful and has progressed to shameless. The material bias in favor of Obama will remain with high probability during his second term.
Also Reads:
No comments:
Post a Comment